Smith Bros. Construction Co. v. Hart

126 So. 373, 101 Fla. 653
Supreme Court of Florida·Decided February 18, 1930·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinions

Per Curiam.

This cause having heretofore been sub-. mitted to the Court upon the transcript of the record of the order herein, and briefs and argument of counsel for the respective parties, and the record having been seen and inspected, and the Court being now advised of its judgment to be given in the premises, it seems to the Court that the constitutional questions raised are determined in the case of Smith Brothers Inc. v. Williams this day filed, and that other equities asserted require a response; it is therefore, considered, ordered and decreed by the Court that the order appealed from is affirmed. Crosland v. Brickell, 86 Fla. 91, 97 So. 286.

Affirmed.

Terrell, C.J., and Whitfield, Ellis, Strum and Buford, J.J., concur. Brown, J., dissents.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Smith Bros. Construction Co. v. Hart, 126 So. 373, 101 Fla. 653 (Fla. 1930).

126 So. 373 (Smith Bros. Construction Co. v. Hart) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Scott v. Scott
30 So. 2d 620 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1947)
State Ex Rel. Smith v. Gomez
179 So. 651 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1938)
Therrell as Liqdr. v. Rinaman
144 So. 327 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1932)